Local Democracy and the Townships of Illinois: A Report to the People

7/29/2019 Local Democracy and the Townships of Illinois: A Report to the People

1/30

Local Democracy and the

Townships of Illinois:A Report to the People

January 2011

Prepared for the

Township Officials of Illinois

By Wendell CoxDemographia


2/30

1

A Report to the People(Executive Summary)

1. Introduction

America's small local governments provide quality services at low costs to taxpayers. One half of thelocal governments in the United States have 1,000 or fewer residents.

These smaller governments are well positioned to respond to the present public budget challenges.

2. Local Democracy in America

Smaller local governments in the United States tend to spend and borrow less per capita than largergovernments.

x The smallest local governments (under 2,500 population) had the lowest annual spending percapita in 2008. The largest local governments (over 250,000 population) spent two-thirds moreper capita than the smallest local governments.

x The smallest local governments had the lowest long-term debt per capita at the end of 2008. Thelargest local governments borrowed more than three times per capita as much as the smallestlocal governments.

The tendency of smaller governments to spend and borrow less has also been indicated in comprehensivesurveys of New York and Pennsylvania. In both states, smaller local governments have been associatedlower spending and debt per capita.

3. Local Democracy in I llinois

Illinois relies on local democracy. The average local government serves 1,800 people in Illinois,compared to the national median (middle) of 2,850 people.

As in the rest of the nation, smaller governments (municipalities) in Illinois tend to spend and borrowless.

x The smallest local governments had expenditures per capita that were generally one-half those oflocal governments with from 10,000 to 250,000 population. Expenditures per capita in thesmallest local governments were approximately one-fourth or less that of the city of Chicago.

x Most of the reporting local governments with less than 2,500 population had nobondedindebtedness. In the population categories above 25,000, bonded indebtedness per capita rangedfrom over $500 to nearly $5,000 in the largest local government, Chicago.

Smaller governments also spend and borrow less in the Chicago metropolitan area

x Local governments with a population of over 10,000 population had expenditures per capitanearly double or more that of the smallest local governments. Expenditures per capita in the cityof Chicago were approximately three times that of local governments in the metropolitan areawith less than 2,500 population.


3/30

2

x Most of the smallest local governments had nolong-term bonded debt. In fact, governments withless than 25,000 population generally had little or no bonded indebtedness. In the populationcategories above 25,000, bonded indebtedness per capita ranges from over $500 to nearly $5,000.

Local governments in Illinois rely less on state funding and pay for themselves to a greater degree than in

38 other states.

4. Local Democracy and the Townships of Illinois

Townships and township road districts are an integral element of local democracy in Illinois. They buildand maintain most of the road mileage in the state (through township road districts), administer relief tolow income households, appraise property for tax assessment, and provide a variety of additionalservices.

Consistent with the lower costs of local democracy, townships have achieved superior efficiency.

x Township expenditures have grown at a lower rate than those of any other level of government inIllinois since 1992.

x Townships have the lowest labor costs, and employ a larger share of part time employees. This isparticularly important, since the largest component of local government expenditures is laborcosts.

Further, Illinois townships rely on debt financing to a more limited degree than municipalities.

Townships have the right to make cooperative agreements with other governments, including townships,municipalities and counties, where the public interest is served. At the same time, such agreements can bediscontinued at contract end if it is in the best interest of any cooperating jurisdiction.

Illinois residents rate township services highly.

x In a 2001 survey, 88 percent of residents rated the performance of township officials high,compared to 42 percent for state officials and 27 percent for federal officials.

x 77 percent of citizens rated the township road maintenance high. This compares to only 37percent for state (and federal) road systems.

The preference for more decentralized services was indicated recently in Perry County. Votersoverwhelmingly passed an advisory ballot issue in the November 2010 election to restore road districts,which had been abolished as a result of a previous ballot issue in this commission county.

Township citizens have the ability, under state law, to abolish townships. Yet, there have been onlyinfrequent campaigns in recent years. Two attempts were rejected by voters in the 1990s and there havebeen no subsequent ballot initiatives.

5. Why Local Democracy is More Efficient and Effective

The success of small local governments, such as townships, results from various factors:


4/30

3

x Local elected officials in smaller governments are able to take a more direct role in administeringgovernment finances and services.

x Individual citizens have more influence in smaller governments. This provides powerfulincentives for elected officials to better represent their concerns, especially by keeping spendingand borrowing at lower levels. In the smallest local governments of Illinois, elected officials may

represent only hundreds of residents. In Chicago, a city council member represents nearly 60,000residents.

x In smaller governments, interest groups have less influence, because individual citizens havemore influence.

Local democracy epitomizes the concept of fiscal federalism, which holds that public services should beadministered as close to residents as feasible.

6. The Pitfalls of Abolishing Local Governments

Occasionally there are proposals to abolish some local governments and consolidate them into larger

government units. These attempts are usually based on the belief that "bigger governments spend less," atheory that is not supported by the evidence.

There are claims that "too many" local governments result in duplication of services. Yet, localgovernments have exclusive geographical service areas, which makes duplication of services impossible.

Sometimes these proposals rely on academic studies or statistical models that predict savings fromabolishment and consolidation. However these approaches miss the interplay between human factors suchas people, organizational cultures and politics that invariably leads to higher costs and more debt.

The evidence is clear that larger governments tend to spend and borrow more per capita.

x Studies of local government consolidations that have been implemented virtually never showmaterial cost savings and generally indicate that higher costs have resulted.

x Local government abolishments and consolidations are more costly because labor cost are"harmonized" at the highest level and service levels tend to be harmonized at the highest level ofthe consolidating governments.

x It becomes more difficult for elected officials to directly oversee the efficiency and effectivenessof public services in larger governments. Individual voters have less influence and, as a result,interest groups tend to have more.

Because of their tendency to spend more and incur higher levels of debt, larger governments have a

greater risk of bond defaults.

Research by two Illinois counties indicated that abolishing townships would result in a substantialincrease in net expenditures.

Abolition and consolidation of local governments has proven to be unpopular, both in Illinois andelsewhere. This is evident in ballot issues rejecting consolidation and community attempts to secede fromsome larger local governments (such as in Los Angeles and New York).


5/30

4

Local government abolitions and consolidations are effectively irrevocable and it can be virtuallyimpossible for discontented citizens to restore smaller units of government. On the other hand,cooperative agreements allow governments to work together to periodically evaluate such arrangementsto ensure that they continue to be in the public interest.

Thus, the "bigger governments spend less" theory is not indicated by the actual experience. The largerlocal governments that result from consolidation are likely to lead to higher rather than lower taxes andspending per capita. Also importantly, the remoteness of such governments from the electorate can dilutecitizen influence more challenging and public service quality can suffer.

7. The Enduring Value of Local Democracy

The smaller local governments that typify local democracy are generally more efficient and they arebetter positioned to provide quality public services to their residents. The history and performance of localdemocracy is witness to its enduring value.


6/30

5

Local Democracy and the Townships of I llinois:A Report to the People

1. INTRODUCTION

The United States is a nation of relatively small local governments. In 2000, slightly more than one-halfRIWKHQDWLRQVJHQHUDOSXUSRVHJRYHUQPHQWVKDGDSRSXODWLRQRIOHVV than 1,000 residents (Figure 1).Further, large areas of the nation, including Illinois, have generally small township governments outsideincorporated local governments that provide decentralized local government services to residents.

This preference for small local government can be traced back centuries, to sources like the New Englandtown meetings. The local democracy inherent in smaller local governments has proven to be timeless, byproviding among the most efficient and highest services. Efficiency was defined as follows bygovernance expert Robert Bish:

The ultimate measure of local government efficiency is not a count of jurisdictions or taxingdistricts, but rather their relative expenditures per capita for quality public services. 1

These attributes are particularly important in today's challenging public finance environment. Smaller,more manageable local governments are well positioned to provide value for taxpayer funding.

Moreover, local democracy continues to be popular among voters.

This report describes the state of local democracy. It begins with an examination of the performance oflocal democracy nationally. It then evaluates the performance of local democracy in Illinois, withparticular attention to townships. The factors contributing to the success of local democracy are discussed,and a description of the pitfalls of local government consolidating follows.

Based on

US Census

Data

Local Governments in the United StatesGENERAL PURPOSE: BY 2000 POPULATION

Population

Class

Figure 1

1Robert L Bish, /RFDO*RYHUQPHQW$PDOJDPDWLRQV'LVFUHGLWHG1LQHWHHQWK-Century Ideals Alivein the Twenty-)LUVW, The Urban Paper, C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, No. 150, Toronto, March 2001.http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/bish.pdf
http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/bish.pdfhttp://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/bish.pdfhttp://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/bish.pdf


7/30

6

2. LOCAL DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA

Generally, national data indicates that smaller local governments spend and borrow less per capitathanlarger local governments.

Expenditures:The relative efficiency of local democracy is indicated by the 2008 Bureau of the Censusdata for core services among local governments.2 It indicates that, generally, smaller local governmentshave lower per capita expenditures than larger local governments.

The smallest median (middle)3 expenditures per capita were in the smallest local governments.Governments with populations under 1,000 and from 1,000 to 2,500 had expenditures per capita ofapproximately $365 annually. Governments with from 2,500 to 25,000 population had somewhat higherexpenditures per capita, at between $400 and $500. Local governments from 25,000 to 100,000 hadhigher per capita expenditures yet, at from $500 to $600. The highest expenditures per capita were in thelargest local governments (100,000 population and above), which had annual expenditures from of morethan $600 per capita (Figure 2).

Thus, the largest local governments had expenditures per capita that were approximately two-thirds ormore higher than in the smallest local governments (under 2,500 population).

Long-Term Debt per Capita:The relative efficiency advantage of smaller governments is more apparentin long-term debt per capita than in expenditures per capita.

The smallest local governments (under 1,000 population) had per capita long-term debt of $771. Localgovernments of from 1,000 to 100,000 had higher long term debt per capita levels, at from $1,230 to$1,432. Local governments between 100,000 and 250,000 population had long-term debt per capita of$1,768. The largest local governments (over 100,000 population) had long term debt per capita far abovethe smaller population categories at $3,664 (Figure 3).4

The contrast between the smallest and largest local governments was even greater in long-term debt percapita than in expenditures per capita. The largest local governments (250,000 population and above) hadlong term debt per capita nearly five times that of the smallest local governments (under 1,000population) and approximately three times that of local governments between 1,000 and 50,000population.

Individual State Analyses: A similar relationship is indicated in Pennsylvania and New York, wherethere is a considerable degree of local democracy with a reliance on smaller units of local government.Our local government reports indicate generally lower tax, spending and debt levels per capita wherejurisdiction populations are smaller.

2

Calculated from the US Bureau of the Census governments database for 2008. The calculation included all 1,176municipalities (cities, towns and villages) reporting expenditures in all 5 functions (police, fire, libraries, parks andrecreation, and roads). Consolidated city-county municipalities were excluded. The US Bureau of the Censusgovernments database includes Illinois township road districts within township data.3 Medians (middle scores) are used in preference to averages, to eliminate the skewing that can occur from aminority of jurisdictions that have far higher than average expenditures or bonded indebtedness per capita. Medianfigures provide a better measure of expenditures and bonded indebtedness per capita in the average localgovernment.4 Analysis of public purpose bonds outstanding at the end of fiscal year 2009 for all 1,174 municipalities reporting tothe United States Bureau of the Census governments database. Consolidated city-counties are excluded.


8/30

7

Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania analysis covered the general government units (approximately 2,500),which included cities, boroughs and townships. The analysis, produced for the Pennsylvania Associationof Township Supervisors, indicated a strong relationship between smallerunits of local government andgreatergovernment efficiency.5

x Per capita spending rose in every population classification (Figure 4).x Debt service per capita also rose in every population classification (Figure 5)

$364 $363$405 $412

$451$512

$566

$624 $619

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

Under1,000

1,000-2,499

2,500-4,999

5,000-9,999

10,000-24,999

25,000-49,999

50,000-99,999

100,000-249,999

250,000 &Higher

ExpendituresperCa

pita

Population

Spending/Capita by Size of GovernmentUS MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS: 2008

Smaller Governments

Fire, Police, Libraries

Roads, Parks & Recreation

Figure 2

$771

$1,251 $1,307 $1,327 $1,230 $1,270$1,432

$1,768

$3,664

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

Under1,000

1,000-2,499

2,500-4,999

5,000-9,999

10,000-24,999

25,000-49,999

50,000-99,999

100,000-249,999

250,000 &Over

Long-TermD

ebtperCapita

Population

Debt/Capita by Size of GovernmentUS MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS: 2008

Smaller GovernmentsPublic Purpose Debt

Outstanding: End of Year

Figure 3

5 Wendell Cox, Growth, Economic Development, and Local Government Structure in Pennsylvania, PennsylvaniaAssociation of Township Supervisors, 2005 (http://www.psats.org/local_gov_growth_report.pdf).
http://www.psats.org/local_gov_growth_report.pdfhttp://www.psats.org/local_gov_growth_report.pdfhttp://www.psats.org/local_gov_growth_report.pdfhttp://www.psats.org/local_gov_growth_report.pdf


9/30

8

A similar relationship was identified in Pennsylvania's metropolitan areas, where smaller governmentshad both lower expenditures and debt service per capita. Further, the nation's second largest consolidatedcity-county government, Philadelphia, had the highest per capita spending level in Pennsylvania.6

$556 $600$740 $804

$925$1,062

$1,265

$2,027

$0

$400

$800

$1,200

$1,600

$2,000

$2,400

Under

1,000

1,000 -

2,499

2,500 -

4,999

5,000 -

9,999

10,000 -

24,999

25,000 -

49,999

50,000 -

199,999

200,000 &

Over

Population

Spending/Capita by Size of GovernmentPENNSYLVANIA: 2001

IncludesCounty

Allocation

Smaller Governments

Figure 4

$42 $52$61

$76$95

$110 $114

$375

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

Under

1,000

1,000 -

2,499

2,500 -

4,999

5,000 -

9,999

10,000 -

24,999

25,000 -

49,999

50,000 -

199,999

200,000 &

Over

Population

Debt Service/Capita by Size of GovernmentPENNSYLVANIA: 2001

IncludesCounty

Allocation

Smaller Governments

Figure 5

New York:The New York analysis covered all7 of the general purpose local government units in New

York (approximately 1,500), including a city-county consolidated government, cities, villages and towns(the functional equivalent of townships). The analysis, prepared for the State Association of Towns of the

6 The local government spending data included county spending weighted by municipal population.7 All except a small number for which there was not complete data.


10/30

9

State of New York, indicated a strong relationship between smallerunits8 of local government andgreatergovernment efficiency.9

x Except for governments with less than 1,000 population, per capita spending was higher in eachlarger population classification (Figure 6).

x Bonded indebtedness per capita was higher in each larger population classification (Figure 7)A similar relationship was identified in New York's metropolitan areas, where smaller governments hadlower expenditures and lower bonded indebtedness per capita. Moreover, the nation's largest consolidatedcity-county government (and the largest in the western world), New York City had the highest per capitaspending level on core municipal services in the state of New York.

$773

$545$602

$709$806

$944

$1,213

$1,323

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

Under

1,000

1,000 -

2,500

2,500 -

5,000

5,000 -

10,000

10,000 -

25,000

25,000 -

50,000

50,000 -

100,000

Over

100,000

Population

Spending/Capita by Size of GovernmentNEW YORK: 2005

Smaller Governments

Figure 6

3. LOCAL DEMOCRACY I N ILLI NOIS

This "smaller governments are more efficient" pattern extends to Illinois.

Illinois relies substantially on local democracy. For the most part, local governments tend to be small,which increases the access of citizens to their elected officials and other public administrators. Some localgovernments, such as counties, local governments and townships provide multiple services, while schooldistricts specialize, providing a single public service, education (and ancillary services such as schooltransportation). Special districts generally provide specialized services over a larger geographical area,especially where it would be less efficient to provide services at the municipal level. The Illinois approachto local governance is consistent with the concept of "fiscal federalism," which holds that public services

should be administered as close to the people as feasible (Section 5, below).

8 Spending per capita in the smallest jurisdictions is skewed higher because of resort communities that have higherpeak vacation period residents.9 Wendell Cox, Government Efficiency: The Case for Local Control, Association of Towns of the State of NewYork, 2008.http://www.nytowns.org/core/contentmanager/uploads/Government.Efficiency.The.Case.for.Local.Control.pdf
http://www.nytowns.org/core/contentmanager/uploads/Government.Efficiency.The.Case.for.Local.Control.pdfhttp://www.nytowns.org/core/contentmanager/uploads/Government.Efficiency.The.Case.for.Local.Control.pdfhttp://www.nytowns.org/core/contentmanager/uploads/Government.Efficiency.The.Case.for.Local.Control.pdf


11/30

10

$416 $483$652

$736$815

$1,060 $1,054

$2,001

$0

$400

$800

$1,200

$1,600

$2,000

$2,400

Under

1,000

1,000 -

2,500

2,500 -

5,000

5,000 -

10,000

10,000 -

25,000

25,000 -

50,000

50,000 -

100,000

Over

100,000

Population

Debt/Capita by Size of GovernmentNEW YORK: 2005

Smaller Governments

Figure 7

Local Government Size in I llinois: The average government in Illinois serves approximately 1,800people. This compares to the national median of approximately 2,850. Even so, many states have smalleraverage size governments than Illinois. For example, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Missouri have even morelocal democracy, with smaller average sized local governments than Illinois. In some states, governmentsare far smaller, such as in North Dakota, where the average government serves less than 250 people. Atthe same time, some states have much larger local governments, with Hawaii having the largest, wherethe average government has a population of 65,000 (Figure 8).

Further, as a result of the extent of local democracy in Illinois, citizens have more direct access to theirelected officials.10 The average elected official in Illinois represented 278 people in 1992, compared to thenational median of 576 (Figure 9).

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

NDSDNEWYKSMTVTID

MN IA

MEMOARWIILOKIN

NMNHCODEPAORWVKYMSOHWAMIAKALUTTXNYSCGACTNJTNMACAAZNC RILANVVAFLMD HI

AveragePopulation

Average Local Government Population2002

MEDIAN Ill

inois

Figure 8

10 Calculated from US Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census of Governments data (latest available data on the numberof elected officials).


12/30

11

Illinois local governments vary significantly in population. The city of Chicago is the largest municipality(and third largest in the nation), with a population of 2,900,000, while there are approximately 40incorporated local governments with fewer than 100 residents.11 It is to be expected that governmentsvarying so much in size will have substantially different spending patterns. However, there is a clear andconsistent pattern of both higher spending and higher bonded indebtedness per capita in Illinois amonglarger local governments.

Expenditures:The efficiency of smaller municipal governments (cities, towns and villages) is illustratedby an analysis of government expenditures by population in the state.12 The analysis included a core ofservices, including public safety (such as police and fire protection), streets and roads, and culture andrecreation, such as libraries and parks.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

NDVTSDNEKSNHMTIA

WYMEID

MNMA ILW

IARMOAKCTOKORPACOINM

I

OHKYMSDETXWVWAUTNYTNNMNJSCLARIALGANVAZNCCAVAMDFLHI

AveragePopulationperElectedOfficial

Population per Elected OfficialBY STATE: 1992

MEDIAN

Illinois

Figure 9

Generally, the smallest local governments (under 1,000 residents) had the lowest expenditures per capitain 2009, at $162, followed by the second smallest category (1,000 to 2,500 residents) at $236. Localgovernments with populations from 2,500 to 10,000 had higher expenditures per capita, at approximately$350. Local governments between 10,000 and 250,000 population had still higher expenditures per capita,with from $510 to $663. The only local government above 250,000 population, Chicago, had the highestper capita expenditures, at $892

Local governments with populations below 2,500 had expenditures per capita that were generally one-halfthose of local governments with from 10,000 to 250,000 population. Expenditures per capita in thesmallest local governments were approximately one-fourth or less that of the city of Chicago (Figure 10).

Bonded I ndebtedness:A similar pattern is illustrated in bonded indebtedness per capita. Larger local

governments generally had more bonded indebtedness than smaller local governments.13

In some smaller

11 2009 estimates of the US Bureau of the Census.12 The analysis included general fund and special fund expenditures in all 556 municipalities reporting expendituresfor public safety, roads and culture and recreation in Illinois. The data is from the Illinois State Comptroller(http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=). Accessed September 3, 2010 and September 30, 2010.13 The analysis included general obligation and revenue bonded indebtedness at December 31, 2009, excludingbonds for water, electric and housing. This included the approximately 896 local governments for which data was
http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=


13/30

12

population categories, the median bonded indebtedness was zero, indicating that most of the localgovernments did not have bonded debt. Local governments in categories above 25,000 population hadbonded indebtedness per capita of more than $500, while the city of Chicago had bonded indebtedness of$4,900 per capita (Figure 11). The city of Chicago's bonded indebtedness per capita was from four to ninetimes that of local governments with from 25,000 to 250,000 population and even higher in relation tosmaller local governments.

$162

$236

$343 $367

$510

$598$657 $663

$892

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

Under1,000

1.000 -2,500

2,500 -4,999

5,000 -9,999

10,000 -24,999

25,000 -49,999

50,000 -99,999

100,000 -249,999

Larger:Chicago

Median

Population

Spending/Capita by Size of GovernmentILLINOIS: CORE SERVICES: 2009

Smaller Governments



Figure 10

$0 $0 $0 $76 $0$556

$1,160$602

$4,898

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

$5,000

Under1,000

1.000 -2,500

2,500 -4,999

5,000 -9,999

10,000 -24,999

25,000 -49,999

50,000 -99,999

100,000 -249,999

Larger:Chicago

Median

Population

Debt/Capita by Size of GovernmentILLINOIS: END OF 2009

Smaller Governments

General Obligation &

Revenue Bonds: Except

Water, Electric & Housing

Figure 11

available, as reported by the Illinois State Comptroller(http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=). Accessed September 3, 2010 and September 30, 2010.
http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=


14/30

13

Chicago Metropolitan Area: Similar patterns are evident in the Chicago metropolitan area.

Expenditures:The smallest local governments (under 1,000 residents) in the Chicago metropolitan area14had the lowest expenditures per capita in 2009 at $245, followed by the second smallest category (1,000to 2,500 residents) with $310. Generally, expenditures per capita rose in the larger categories, thoughthere were anomalies in three categories.15

Local governments with a population of over 10,000 population had expenditure per capita levels ofnearly double or more that of local governments with fewer than 2,500 residents. Expenditures per capitain the city of Chicago were approximately three times that of local governments in the metropolitan areawith less than 2,500 population (Figure 12).

Bonded I ndebtedness:Similarly, the lowest per capita general bonded indebtedness was in the smallestlocal governments and the highest bonded indebtedness per capita was in the larger local governments.16The categories of local governments below 25,000 population varied from a median of zero bondedindebtedness to $421 per capita. The categories above 25,000 population all showed bonded indebtednessof more than $500 per capita, with the largest population category (Chicago) at $4,900 (Figure 13).

I llinois Local Governments Pay for Themselves: The 50 states vary significantly in the extent to whichlocal governments fund themselves.17 For example, in Vermont (2008), 69 percent of local governmentgeneral revenue is provided by the state, while local revenue represents 31 percent. At the other end of thespectrum, the Hawaii state government funds only 10 percent of local government general. In Illinois, thestate funds approximately 30 percent of local general revenues, while local governments raise 70 percent(Figure 14).

Local governments generally pay for themselves in Illinois. The share of local revenue obtained fromstate sources is higher in 38 states. State general revenue18 for local governments is principally frommotor fuel taxes (for roads) and personal property tax replacement revenues. Generally, this state aid issomewhat smaller to local governments with less than 5,000 population and the city of Chicago.However, the city of Chicago receives a substantial amount of its general revenue from the federal

government, unlike the smaller population classifications (Figure 15).

14 The analysis included general fund and special fund expenditures in all 123 municipalities reporting expendituresfor public safety, roads and culture and recreation in the eight Illinois counties (Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy,Kane, Kendall, Lake and Will) defined by the US Bureau of the Census as a part of the Chicago metropolitanstatistical area. The data is from the Illinois State Comptroller(http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=). Accessed September 3, 2010 and September 30, 2010.15 2,500 to 5,000, 10,000 to 25,000 and 50,000 to 100,000.16

The analysis included general obligation and revenue bonded indebtedness as of the end of fiscal year 2009,excluding bonds for water, electric and housing. All 240 municipalities were included for which data was availablein the eight Illinois counties (Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kendall, Lake and Will) defined by the USBureau of the Census as a part of the Chicago metropolitan statistical area. The data is from the Illinois StateComptroller(http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=). Accessed September 3, 2010 and September 30, 2010.17 Does not include federal funding.18 This is general revenue as defined in the US Bureau of the Census governments database, which includes statemotor fuel taxes.
http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=http://www.comptrollerconnect.ioc.state.il.us/Office/LocalGovt/ViewReports2002/SelectLocalGov.cfm?Code=&CFY=&UserName=&C4=&OptionSel=&BetaSel=


15/30

14

$245$310

$635

$459

$593$535

$694

$613

$892

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

Under1,000

1.000 -2,500

2,500 -4,999

5,000 -9,999

10,000 -24,999

25,000 -49,999

50,000 -99,999

100,000 -249,999

Larger:Chicago

Median

Population

Spending/Capita by Size of GovernmentCHICAGO METROPOLITAN AREA: 2009 (ILLINOIS ONLY)

Smaller Governments

Figure 12



$0 $421 $358$91

$304$565

$1,278

$822

$4,898

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

$5,000

Under1,000

1.000 -2,500

2,500 -4,999

5,000 -9,999

10,000 -24,999

25,000 -49,999

50,000 -99,999

100,000 -249,999

Larger:Chicago

Median

Population

Debt/Capita by Size of GovernmentCHICAGO METROPOLITAN AREA: END OF 2009

Smaller Governments

Figure 13

General Obligation &

Revenue Bonds: Except

Water, Electric & Housing

At the same time, locally generated general revenues rise even more steeply as local governmentpopulation increases. Local governments with from 1,000 to 2,500 residents raise less than one-fifth thegeneral revenue per capita of local governments between 50,000 and 250,000 residents, and one-eighththat of the city of Chicago.19

4. LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND THE TOWNSHIPS OF ILLINOIS

The townships of Illinois epitomize the advantages of local democracy. Townships, together withtownship road districts provide local government services in 85 of the state's 102 counties. In parts of thenation where there are no township or township road district equivalent governments (whether in Illinois

19Calculated from municipalities reporting to the Illinois Comptroller for 2009.


16/30

15

or in the non-township states), citizens outside incorporated local governments are dependent upon countygovernments for local services.20

State Share of Local General Revenue50 STATES: 2008

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

VTARNMDEMI

MNWVMSWICAID

WYKYAZMTALPANCOKOHAKMANVUTOR INV

A IANDKSLAWAMENYSC RI

MDTN IL

CTNHGATXNJMOSDNEFLCOHI

ShareofTaxesthatareLocal

Illinois

Other States

Figure 14

$55$124

$192$248

$343$418

$633 $610

$984

$159$201

$228$268

$307$331

$277 $278

$227

$260

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

Under1,000

1.000 -2,500

2,500 -4,999

5,000 -9,999

10,000 -24,999

25,000 -49,999

50,000 -99,999

100,000 -249,999

250,000& Over

Median

Population

Federal Assistance

State Assistance

Local Taxes

Source of Municipal RevenueILLINOIS: 2009

Smaller Governments

Figure 15

Townships provide important services in Illinois. Township road districts build and maintain the townshiproad systems. These systems comprise more than one-half of the road mileage in the state (Figure 16).

These roads are crucial to residents who live outside incorporated municipalities, but also to the state'seconomy, especially its large agricultural industry. One of the substantial advantages of township roaddistricts is their ability to ensure a high level of maintenance and snow clearance because their facilitiestend to be located closer to the roads they administer.

20 The Illinois State Comptroller's local governments financial reporting system places township road districts withintownships, and refers to township road districts as "blended component units" of townships.


17/30

16

Pre-Lehman Brothers LossesBY MARKET CLASSIFICATION

State

11%

County

12%

Municipality

25%Township

52%

Illinois Road Mileage by Government2009-2010

Figure 16

Townships also administer relief programs for low-income households, appraise property for taxassessment purpose and some townships provide other services.

Expenditures:Available measures indicate that townships share the comparatively low expenditures percapita that are typical of smaller municipal governments in Illinois.

The comparative efficiency of townships is illustrated by expenditure trends. From 1992 to 2007, totaltownship expenditures increased 17 percent, after adjustment for inflation. In contrast, state governmentexpenditures rose nearly three times as much, at 51 percent. The rise in municipal expenditures was 50percent, also nearly three times that of townships. County expenditures rose 66 percent, nearly four times

the increase in township expenditures (Figure 17).21

Personnel expenditures and practices also indicate the relative efficiency of township governments inIllinois. Like the most efficient municipal governments in Illinois, townships tend to be smallergovernments, with small staffs. The average township staff is approximately equal to the average forvillages in the state with a population of less than 1,600.22

Employee compensation represents the largest element of local government expenditure. Township wagesand salaries levels per employees are the lowest among the various government types in the state ofIllinois (Figure 18).

Further, townships rely to a large degree on part time employees (Figure 19). This not only reduces wage

and salary expense, but also reduces employer paid fringe benefits.

Employer paid benefits (fringe benefits) are not included in the wage and salary figures. Data is notavailable for employer paid benefits. However, the lower wage and salary figures and the greater use of

21 Calculated from US Bureau of the Census, Census of Governments data. This database includes township roaddistricts in township data.22 Based upon data reported to the Illinois Comptroller.


18/30

17

part time employees make it likely that township employee benefits are less costly per employee than forother levels of government.

Similarly, the wages and salaries of township road employees is well below those of road employees ofstate and municipal governments (Figure 20). Employer paid benefits would be less as well.

Debt:Illinois townships rely on debt financing to a more limited degree than municipalities. This isindicated by spending and debt ratios (Figure 21).23

x Long term debt in municipalities was equal to 3.6 percent of spending in 2007.x Long term debt in townships was much smaller, at 0.6 percent of spending in 2007.

51%

66%

50%

74%

35%

17%

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

State County Municipal Township SchoolDistrict

SpecialDistrict

Change in Total ExpendituresILLINOIS: BY TYPE OF GOVERNMENT: 1992-2007

Figure 17

$4,449

$4,050$4,358

$3,730 $3,776

$2,993

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

State County Municipal Township SchoolDistrict

SpecialDistrict

MonthlyperFull-TimeEquivalent

Employee

Average Wages & SalariesILLINOIS BY TYPE OF GOVERNMENT: 2007

Figure 18

23 Total long-term debt from the US Bureau of the Census, Census of Governments, 2007.


19/30

18

31%

9%

25% 23%

53%

77%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

State County Municipal Township SchoolDistricts

SpecialDistricts

PartTimeEmployees/TotalE

mployees

Part Time EmployeesILLINOIS BY TYPE OF GOVERNMENT: 2007

Figure 19

$6,042

$4,279$4,501

$2,773

$0

$1,500

$3,000

$4,500

$6,000

$7,500

State County Municipal Township

Averag

eMonthlyperFull-TimeEquivalent

Average Wages & Salaries: RoadsILLINOIS BY TYPE OF GOVERNMENT: 2007

Figure 20

Intergovernmental Cooperation: Townships are able to make cooperative agreements with othergovernments where it is in the public interest. The Illinois constitution also empowers townships andother units of government to make agreements with other units of government, which makes it possible toshare services or purchase jointly. Elected officials are free to take advantage of this authority whereefficiency or services can be improved. At the same time, the temporary nature of these arrangementspreserves the right of local governments to make alterations to or cancel contracts at renewal time. This

provides governments with an important strategy for taking advantage of service quality and costeffective improvements opportunities, where they exist.

For example, in four counties (Coles, Douglas, Moultrie and Piatt), county road functions have beencontracted to township road districts.


20/30

19

3.6%

0.6%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

Municipalities Townships

Long-TermD

ebt/Expenditure

Ratio

Debt to Expenditure RatioILLINOIS MUNICIPALITIES & TOWNSHIPS

Figure 21

27%

42%

88%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Federal State Township

PercentageRankingHigh

Ratings of Public Officials2001 SURVEY: U. OF ILL. SPRINGFIELD SURVEY

Figure 22

Further, the Township Officials of Illinois has a pro-active program to provide training and information totownship officials on intergovernmental cooperation. Finally, under provisions of state law, townshipswith a population under 1,000 participate with one or more adjacent townships in a multi-townshipassessment district.

Service Quality: Illinois township government is well regarded by its citizens. A public opinion surveyconducted by University of Illinois-Springfield Professors Leonard Branson and Joe Wilkins24 for the

Township Officials of Illinois in 2001 gave high ratings to township level officials and services comparedto officials at other levels of government (Figure 22).25

x 88 percent rated the performance of their township officials high.24 Leonard Branson and Joe Wilkins, Continuing Relevance: Township Government in the 21st Century, Reportprepared for the Township Officials of Illinois, 2001.25 Rated "4" or "5" on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest rating.


21/30

20

x 42 percent rated the performance of state government officials high.x 27 percent rated the performance of federal government officials high.

Township governments are also less subject to political partisanship. Only 31 percent of respondentsconsidered the political parties of candidates to be of importance in townships, which compares to a much

higher 53 percent with respect to candidates for state and federal office.26

The survey included questions about the performance of township road districts and similarly high ratingswere achieved (Figure 23).

x 77 percent rated township road district performance high.x 37 percent rated state (including federal) road performance high.

Township roads provide virtually the only transportation access to most township residents. High ratingswere received on crucial services, such as snow removal and the timeliness of repairs (Figure 24).

x 87 percent rated township road district snow removal high.x 77 percent rated the timeliness of township road district repairs high.

One of the keys to the success of local democracy is the fact that the administration of local governmentservices are closer to the people. This is illustrated by a recent example from Perry County. In 2004 thevoters of Perry County narrowly approved (by one vote) a measure that abolished decentralized roaddistricts and instead created a single "unit road district" in the county. This meant that the roadconstruction, maintenance and other services (such as snow plowing) were handled by a singleadministration in the county seat, rather than former, more decentralized road districts.27

37%

77%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

State (Includes Federal) Township

W

Z ,

Road Performance Ratings2001 SURVEY: U. OF ILL. SPRINGFIELD SURVEY

Figure 23

26 Rated "4" or "5" on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest rating.27 Perry County is a commission and thus does not have statutory townships. Nonetheless, most commissioncounties have decentralized road districts.


22/30

21

Many of the county's citizens were unsatisfied with the new arrangements, perceiving that road servicesdeclined materially in areas of the county that were more remote from the county seat.28 Theysuccessfully petitioned the Board of Commissioners to place the following advisory referendum on theNovember 2010 ballot to allow restoration of decentralized road services:

"Shall the Illinois General Assembly pass legislation that would give the voters of Perry County,

Illinois, the opportunity to change from the current Unit Road District to a system of multipleroad districts?"29

87%

77%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Snow Plowing Timeliness of Repairs

WZ ,

Township Road Performance Ratings2001 SURVEY: U. OF ILL. SPRINGFIELD SURVEY

Figure 24

Pre-Lehman Brothers LossesBY MARKET CLASSIFICATION

Yes

70%

No

30%

Referendum: Restoration of Road DistrictsPERRY COUNTY: NOVEMBER 2010 ELECTION

BALLOT LANGUAGE

Shall the Illinois

General Assembly pass

legislation that would

give the voters of

Perry County, Illinois,

the opportunity to

change from the current

Unit Road District to a

system of multiple

road districts?

Figure 25

28 Seehttp://www.wsiltv.com/p/news_details.php?newsID=11382&type=topand John H. Crossman, "Non-BindingRoad District Referendum to Gauge Support for Turning Back the Clock, Duqoin Evening Call , October 26, 2010.29 Minutes of the Perry County Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting August 5, 2010,http://www.perrycountyil.org/minutes080510.pdf
http://www.perrycountyil.org/minutes080510.pdfhttp://www.wsiltv.com/p/news_details.php?newsID=11382&type=tophttp://www.perrycountyil.org/minutes080510.pdfhttp://www.wsiltv.com/p/news_details.php?newsID=11382&type=tophttp://www.wsiltv.com/p/news_details.php?newsID=11382&type=tophttp://www.wsiltv.com/p/news_details.php?newsID=11382&type=tophttp://www.perrycountyil.org/minutes080510.pdfhttp://www.perrycountyil.org/minutes080510.pdfhttp://www.perrycountyil.org/minutes080510.pdfhttp://www.wsiltv.com/p/news_details.php?newsID=11382&type=top


23/30

22

The referendum passed overwhelmingly, with 71 percent of the vote (a margin of nearly 3,000, comparedto the margin ofonewhen road districts were abolished). Implementing the will of the electorate,however, will require a special legislative effort in Springfield (Figure 25).

Illinois law permits voters to abolish townships. However, the generally high satisfaction level may haveprecluded the development of any widespread movement. Two ballot issues failed by two to one margins

in the 1990s. However there have been no ballot issues since then. This is also an indication of citizensatisfaction.

Similar results were obtained in a survey conducted for the Michigan Township Association. Paul King,Director of Research for the polling organization (Michigan Resource Group) characterized the findingsas follows:

Michigan residents believe local government does a better job than county, state or federalgovernment when it comes to improving their quality of life, keeping their families safe andTXLFNO\UHVSRQGLQJWRWKHLUQHHGV(VSHFLDOO\DPRQJWKRVHZKROLYHLQWRZQVKLSVUHVSRQGHQWV

have a better relationship with their local officials than they do with administrators and staff atother levels of government.30

5. WHY LOCAL DEMOCRACY I S MORE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE

The success of local democracy is principally the result of the fact that government is closer to the people.

Local democracy is based upon the principle of "fiscal federalism,"31 or "right-sizing" of government.Fiscal federalism holds that a public service should be administered as close to the people as is feasible.Thus, fiscal federalism involves local government administration of services such as local roads, solidwaste collection and education. Regional services, such as county and state roads or air pollution controlare more appropriately administered by county governments, regional special districts or stategovernments.

Advantages of Smaller Local Governments: Both the Illinois and national data indicates that smallerlocal governments are generally more efficient than larger local governments, and they are effective inproviding quality public services. This performance is due to various advantages:

Greater Attention to Detail:Governance expert Robert Bish notes that smaller governments tend to bemore careful about financial management, and scrutinize individual expenditures more completely.32

... as governments get bigger, council lors tend to spend less time on the financing of individualprograms or projects that represent a diminishing proportion of their growing budget;33

At the same time, this more direct attention tends to encourage better public services. Citizen complaintsare far more likely to be attended to by the elected officials who depend upon the votes of the citizens

they serve.

30 Marketing Research Group, Recent Poll Among Michigan Residents Shows Strong Support for TownshipGovernment, January 9, 2009,http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/01-13-2009/0004953906&EDATE=31 Fiscal federalism is also called "subsidiarity" in the European Union.32

Bish, 2001.33 Bish, 2001.
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/01-13-2009/0004953906&EDATE=http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/01-13-2009/0004953906&EDATE=http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/01-13-2009/0004953906&EDATE=http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/01-13-2009/0004953906&EDATE=http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/01-13-2009/0004953906&EDATE=


24/30

23

The 2010 Perry County road referendum (Section 4, above) is example of this. Reports indicate that themore centralized administration had resulted in a perception of inferior road maintenance in more distantparts of the county. The overwhelming adoption of the advisory referendum to restore road districtsappears to indicate a view on the part of voters that administration closer to home would solve thatproblem.

This higher level of attention to fiscal and administrative details is the natural result of smallergovernment. Where governments are smaller, elected officials are able to directly oversee governmentbusiness, rather than having to rely on larger staffs. Further, in smaller governments, there is a greaterlikelihood that staffs will identify with local residents, and they may be more likely to have stronger tieswith the community.

This provides local governments with the maximum flexibility for responding to changing needs.

Stronger Electoral Influence:Smaller local governments are more accessible to the electorate. In smallerlocal governments, there are fewer voters per elected official. In many smaller local governments,individual voters are far more likely to be able to directly contact or even know their local elected

officials.

Thus, with smaller local governments, the influence of individual voters is stronger. For example, in thesmallest local governments of Illinois, elected officials may represent only hundreds of residents. In thelargest city, Chicago, a city council member represents nearly 60,000 residents.

On the other hand, where local governments are larger, governments become more remote from theirelectorates. This creates disincentives for contacting government and in public participation. This hasbeen shown to lead, for example, to smaller voter turnouts.34 As elected officials become more remotefrom the electorate, the views of individual citizens become more diluted in deliberations bygovernments, including elected officials, appointed officials and government staffs.

Less Susceptible to Interest Groups:While smaller governments are more accessible to the voters theyare intended to serve, they are also more immune to the influence of interest groups, regardless of theirpolitical philosophies. As Robert Bish puts it:

...large governments are also more responsive to special interest programs and projects than aresmall governments.35

Further, electoral campaigns in smaller governments are less expensive and largely financed by localvoters. On the other hand, where government become larger, there is more interest group financing ofpolitical campaigns, which naturally leads to greater influence. Inevitably these leads to a dilution ofindividual voter influence. This tends to result in less efficiency (higher spending), because interestgroups typically seek higher expenditure levels, while citizens tend to oppose higher spending, because of

the higher taxes that result. An important advantage of smaller local governments is that they can "levelthe playing field," between voters and interest groups.

Better Serving the People: These factors confirm the wisdom of fiscal federalism. Democracy, whichIllinoisan Abraham Lincoln referred to as "government of the people, by the people and for the people,"produces results more consistent with the public will (which is the purpose of democracy) where elected

34 Bish, 2001.35 Bish, 2001.


25/30

24

officials are closer to the people. This means that governments should generally be no larger and nofurther from the electorate than necessary to competently administer a particular public service. The localgovernance system of Illinois, with its human scale cities, towns, villages and townships largely achievesthe ideals of fiscal federalism.

6. THE PITFALLS OF ABOLISHI NG LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

State and local governments are experiencing their greatest financial challenges in decades. As a result,there is considerable pressure to improve government efficiency and to reduce public expenditures.

Despite the evidence that smaller governments spend less per capita and borrow less than largergovernments, local government abolition and consolidation into larger governments is periodicallysuggested as a strategy for improved efficiency. These proposals are usually based on a belief that "biggergovernments spend less."

Proponents of the "bigger governments spend less" theory may base their proposals on imagined savingsfrom non-existent "duplication of services" or an assumption that fewer governments are more efficient.Academic studies predict savings from abolishments/consolidations, yet have virtually never

demonstrated achievement of material savings once the abolishments have been implemented.

Critics of local democracy sometimes suggest that Illinois spends too much money because it has toomany local governments. Again, as the data indicates, this is virtually the opposite of reality.

Finally, it is sometimes suggested that having smaller units of government makes metropolitan areas lesscompetitive, which leads to slower economic growth. Again, the data does not support this claim.

Duplication of Services: The claimed "duplication of services" virtually never exists. Local governmentshave specific geographical areas of responsibility. For example, two local governments do not administersolid waste collection from the same customers. Nor do two separate units of governments maintain thesame traffic signal. Critics may be equating the number of governments with duplication, failing to

recognize that duplication cannot occur where there are specific, exclusive geographical areas of service.

Government Efficiency: As noted above (Section 1), government efficiency is measured by a singlestandard --- the amount of spending relative either to units of service measure (such as expenditures perpupil or employee) or population. As has been shown above, smaller governments (more localgovernments) are generally associated with greaterefficiency, as measured by per capita spending andemployee compensation.

Abolishment of local governments, however, unleashes factors that can make governments less efficient.These difficulties have been particularly evident in Canada and Australia, where provincial and stategovernments have forced local government abolishments, without regard to the will of citizens.Abolishments have been less frequent in the United States, principally due to a tradition of strong local

government that generally requires approval by the residents involved.

Harmonization of Labor Costs and Policies:Government abolishments/consolidations are made morecostly by the necessary "harmonization" of employee policies. Personnel costs, including wages, salariesand employer fringe benefits constitute the largest element of local government expenditure. When two ormore local governments are combined, it can be expected that the provisions of the most expensive laborcontract (such as wages, benefits and paid time off) will be adopted for all employees. This raises costsfor the new consolidated government, making it less efficient.


26/30

25

Harmonization of Services:Merging local governments will inevitably have different service levels.Public service packages may also differ, with some public services provided in one consolidatingjurisdiction, but not in the other. Typically, larger governments will provide a larger array of publicservices. As with personnel policies, it can be expected that both services and service levels will beharmonized at the highest level, which forces at least some residents to pay higher fees and taxes. Serviceharmonization was cited as a problem in Toronto by the Toronto Business Alliance (below). Any

preference for higher levels of service in larger governments will tend to work against any potential forsavings from abolishment and consolidation.

Transition Costs:Moreover, consolidations involve merging of separate organizational cultures andprocedures, which incurs transitional costs. In Halifax, the transition costs of the merger were four timesthe projection.36

Disadvantages of Larger Governments: Further, the factors that encourage greater efficiency in smallergovernments work against efficiency in larger governments (see Section 5).

x Elected officials are not able to be as attentive to detail.x Individual voters have less influence.x Interest groups are likely to have more influence.

Theoretical Savings Are Not Realized: It is thus not surprising that the savings predicted in academicstudies virtually never occur in reality. This is illustrated by the highest profile recent local governmentabolishment and consolidation in North America. The 1998 abolishment of six local governments andconsolidation into a regional governments in Toronto (Canada) was promised by advocates to savetaxpayers $300 million annually. In fact, costs have risen materially and city employment has increasedby more than 4,000 since the consolidation.37 Despite the strong business support for the consolidation, a2003 report by the prestigious Toronto City Summit Alliance noted that the harmonization of wages andservice levels has resulted in higher costs for the new City. We wil l all continue to feel these higher costs

in the future.38

A municipal-regional39 abolishment and consolidation was forced upon Halifax, Nova Scotia by theprovincial government in 1996 on the basis of anticipated efficiencies. By 2000, there was no indicationof any savings, while user fees and taxes had increased. Taxes rose from 10 percent in the former centralcity to 30 percent in rural areas, as the tax burden was spread to suburban voters who had not beeninvolved in electing the city leaders who had imposed the higher cost structure of the city.40 Moreover, theexpenditures have risen, rather than fallen since that time. Between 2000 and 2007, operatingexpenditures rose 14 percent per capita, inflation adjusted.41

36 Bish, 2001.37%DUU\+HU]$PDOJDPDWLRQ\HDUVODWHUThe National Post, 28 December 2007.38 Toronto City Summit Alliance, Enough Talk: An Action Plan for the Toronto Region, April 2003;http://www.torontoalliance.ca/docs/TCSA_report.pdf, accessed April 14, 2007.39 Equivalent of a city-county consolidation.40Robert L Bish, /RFDO*RYHUQPHQW$PDOJDPDWLRQV'LVFUHGLWHG1LQHWHHQWK-Century Ideals Alivein the Twenty-)LUVW, The Urban Paper, C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, No. 150, Toronto, March 2001.http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/bish.pdf41 Calculated from data in Halifax Regional Municipality annual reports and budgets.
http://www.torontoalliance.ca/docs/TCSA_report.pdfhttp://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/bish.pdfhttp://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/bish.pdfhttp://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/bish.pdfhttp://www.torontoalliance.ca/docs/TCSA_report.pdf


27/30

26

Projected savings did not occur in other government abolishments and consolidations, such as the city-county consolidations of Jacksonville, Florida42 and Nashville, Tennessee.43 The consolidated city-countygovernment in Indianapolis required a $1 billion state rescue of its pension liabilities.44

The academic studies miss the interplay between human factors such as people, organizational culturesand politics that invariably leads to higher costs and more debt when government abolishments and

consolidations take place.

Number of Local Governments: Concern about the number of local governments is misplaced, becausethere is no indication that a smaller number of governments leads either to greater efficiency or to higherquality public services.

Enumerations of local government units ... provide only census-type information about thenumber of units, population and area served. No data are provided about the costs of publicservices, the output of public services nor the relative efficiency with which public services areproduced.45

The data above indicates generally, in the United States and specifically in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas

and New York, that smaller local governments are associated with lower expenditures per capita.

Susceptibility to Financial Crises: Because of their tendency to spend more and incur higher levels ofdebt, larger governments have a greater risk of bond defaults and serious financial crises. For example,New York City and Cleveland defaulted on debts in the 1970s. Pittsburgh was placed under stateadministration due to its fiscal difficulties earlier in this decade and Philadelphia was threatened withdefault in the early 1990s. The consolidated city of Indianapolis, which has been touted as a model oflocal government abolishment and consolidation, required a $1 billion state rescue of its pension funds.Nonetheless, a $1 billion unfunded liability remains in its employee retirement funds, even after the cityborrowed $100 million to pay down unfunded pension liabilities in 2005. The mayor of Indianapolis hasindicated that the city "has has lived beyond its means in recent years, and it is on an unsustainablefinancial path."46

Local Government Size and Competitiveness: Proponents of the "bigger governments spend less"theory have also claimed that metropolitan areas with larger units of government achieve greatereconomic growth.47

However, the purported association is not evident in the Midwest and Northeastern regions of the nation,which have generally grown slowly since World War II.48 For example, there has been a strong

42 G. Ross Stephens and Nelson Wikstrom, Metropoli tan Government and Governance: Theoretical Perspectives,Empirical Analyses, and the Future, p. 80.43 Stephens and Wikstrom,p. 75.44 "Pension Shift Saves City $1 Billion," http://www.topix.com/forum/indy/TE8SI4I8NDPGMB2A0

reported in the Indianapolis Star,http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008803180364.45 Robert L. Bish and Vincent Ostrum, Understanding Urban Government: Metropolitan Reform Reconsidered,Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1973, p. 74.46 Mayor Gregory A. Ballard, 100 Day Report,http://indy.gov/eGov/Mayor/Documents/100%20Day%20Report.pdf,April 2008.47-HUU\3D\WDV'RHV*RYHUQDQFH0DWWHU7KH'\QDPLFVRI0HWURSROLWDQ*RYHUQDQFHDQG&RPSHWLtiveness.http://www.smartpolicy.org/pdf/governancematter.pdf.48 Proponents of this thesis point to the job creation that has occurred in Sun Belt states, where local governmentstend to be larger. A chapter ("Local Democracy and Economic Growth") in Wendell Cox, Growth, Economic
http://www.topix.com/forum/indy/TE8SI4I8NDPGMB2A0http://www.topix.com/forum/indy/TE8SI4I8NDPGMB2A0http://indy.gov/eGov/Mayor/Documents/100%20Day%20Report.pdfhttp://indy.gov/eGov/Mayor/Documents/100%20Day%20Report.pdfhttp://indy.gov/eGov/Mayor/Documents/100%20Day%20Report.pdfhttp://www.smartpolicy.org/pdf/governancematter.pdfhttp://www.smartpolicy.org/pdf/governancematter.pdfhttp://www.smartpolicy.org/pdf/governancematter.pdfhttp://indy.gov/eGov/Mayor/Documents/100%20Day%20Report.pdfhttp://www.topix.com/forum/indy/TE8SI4I8NDPGMB2A0


28/30

27

association between morelocal democracy (smaller units of government) and greater job growth. This isevident in major metropolitan job growth rates between 1980 and 2005 (Figure 26):

x Metropolitan areas with average local government49 populations under 10,000 experienced a 38percent growth in employment.

x Metropolitan areas with average local government populations between 10,000 and 20,000experienced a 20 percent growth in employment.

x Metropolitan areas with average local government populations over 20,000 experienced a 17percent growth in employment.

This is not to suggest that smaller governments necessarily lead to greater economic growth. The datadoes, however, show that larger units of local government do not lead to greater economic growth

Township Abolishment Research in I llinois: Research conducted in the 1990s by Illinois countiesindicated that abolishment of townships and consolidation into counties would be more expensive fortaxpayers.

x A report produced by Rock Island County (1997) indicated that abolishment of townships into thecounty would result in an increase of $12.2 million in annual operating expenditures and one-timetransition costs of up to $8.1 million.50

x A report produced by McHenry County (1994) indicated that abolishment of townships into thecounty would result in an increase of $9.4 million in annual operating expenditures and one-timetransition costs of $6.6 million.51

Unpopularity of Abolishment and Consolidation: Government consolidations have often beenunpopular with residents. Where voters are given a choice, they often oppose consolidations. In Toronto,voters rejected abolishment and consolidation by margins of more than two-to-one in each of the six

threatened local governments. Nonetheless, the province forced the abolishments. Even today, more than10 years after the forced consolidation, some local interests have begun to call for demerger of theconsolidated city of Toronto.52 The newly elected mayor of Hamilton, Ontario (the ninth largest city inCanada) has called for a review that could result in the demerger of that consolidated city, which wasformed by local government abolishments in 2001.53 Similarly, there have been calls for demerger of

Development and Local Government Structure in Pennsylvanianotes strong associations between superioreconomic growth and lower snowfall levels and better business climates (pages 47-52).49 General purpose local governments (excludes school districts and special districts).50 Rock Island County Board Office, The Possible Statutory Dissolution of Township Government in Rock Island

County: An Impact Analysis on Rock Island County Government, December 1997. Figures in 2010 dollars. In 1997dollars, the figures were $9 million in operating costs and $6 million in transition costs.51 Office of the McHenry County Administrator, The Possible Statutory Dissolution of Township Government: AnImpact Analysis on McHenry CountyGovernment, 1994. Figures in 2010 dollars. In 1994 dollars, the figures were$6.4 million in operating expenditures and $4.5 million in transition costs..52 See: "More of a Case for De-Amalgamation," The Bulletin Downtown(Toronto), June 9, 2009,http://www.thebulletin.ca/cbulletin/content.jsp?sid=15476744318100918425170959241&ctid=1000002&cnid=100218853 See: "No De-Amalgamation for Hamilton: Province," The Hamilton Spectator, October 23, 2010.http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/271794--no-deamalgamation-for-hamilton-province
http://www.thebulletin.ca/cbulletin/content.jsp?sid=15476744318100918425170959241&ctid=1000002&cnid=1002188http://www.thebulletin.ca/cbulletin/content.jsp?sid=15476744318100918425170959241&ctid=1000002&cnid=1002188http://www.thebulletin.ca/cbulletin/content.jsp?sid=15476744318100918425170959241&ctid=1000002&cnid=1002188http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/271794--no-deamalgamation-for-hamilton-provincehttp://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/271794--no-deamalgamation-for-hamilton-provincehttp://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/271794--no-deamalgamation-for-hamilton-provincehttp://www.thebulletin.ca/cbulletin/content.jsp?sid=15476744318100918425170959241&ctid=1000002&cnid=1002188http://www.thebulletin.ca/cbulletin/content.jsp?sid=15476744318100918425170959241&ctid=1000002&cnid=1002188


29/30

28

Canada's capital, Ottawa (Ontario), a consolidated city formed by local government abolishments in2001.54

38%

20%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Under 10,000 10,000 - 19,999 20,000 & Over

EmploymentGrowth

Average Local Government Population

Job Creation & Government SizeMIDWEST & NORTHEAST: 1980-2005

Figure 26

Opposition to forced consolidations was so strong that a newly elected government in Quebec provided amechanism for merged local governments to "demerge." Fifteen local governments that had beenabolished and combined into the city of Montral took advantage of this option, despite considerable legalobstacles.

A local government abolishment/consolidation initiative was strongly opposed in the Australian state ofQueensland. The effectiveness of the opposition was diluted by a rushed consultation process and a strongstate government proclivity toward consolidation.55 More recently an attempt to abolish and combinethree smaller local governments in the state of New South Wales was defeated by determined local

government opposition. In an virtually unprecedented action, the state cancelled its previously announcedabolishment mandate.56

As noted above, attempts to abolish township governments in two Illinois counties were soundly rejected(Section 4, above).

I rrevocability of Consolidation: Government consolidations are often virtually irrevocable. As notedabove, even where "demerger" was permitted in Quebec, the requirements were onerous. This singleconsolidation in which a subsequent exit was permitted, a majority of the abolished local governmentsvoted to withdraw from the consolidated city.57 In Illinois, Perry County would require state legislativeaction to reverse the consolidation of road districts that voters prefer.

54 See: "Ottawa Mayoral Candidate Reiterates De-amalgamation Pledge, YourOttawaRegion.com, September 30,2010.http://www.yourottawaregion.com/news/elections/article/881027.55 Ian Tiley and Brian Dollery, Historical Evolution of Local Government Amalgamation in Queensland, theNorthern Terri tory and Western Australia, http://www.une.edu.au/clg/working-papers/02-2010x.pdf56 Wendell Cox, "Australian Local Governments Stop Forced Amalgamation, The New Geography,November 22,2010.http://www.newgeography.com/content/001886-australian-local-governments-stop-forced-amalgamation57 This occurred despite an onerous electoral process that required a large share of registered voters to participateand an unusually short petition process. See: http://www.publicpurpose.com/pp-montreal.pdf.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/001886-australian-local-governments-stop-forced-amalgamationhttp://www.yourottawaregion.com/news/elections/article/881027http://www.yourottawaregion.com/news/elections/article/881027http://www.yourottawaregion.com/news/elections/article/881027http://www.une.edu.au/clg/working-papers/02-2010x.pdfhttp://www.une.edu.au/clg/working-papers/02-2010x.pdfhttp://www.newgeography.com/content/001886-australian-local-governments-stop-forced-amalgamationhttp://www.newgeography.com/content/001886-australian-local-governments-stop-forced-amalgamationhttp://www.newgeography.com/content/001886-australian-local-governments-stop-forced-amalgamationhttp://www.publicpurpose.com/pp-montreal.pdfhttp://www.publicpurpose.com/pp-montreal.pdfhttp://www.publicpurpose.com/pp-montreal.pdfhttp://www.newgeography.com/content/001886-australian-local-governments-stop-forced-amalgamationhttp://www.une.edu.au/clg/working-papers/02-2010x.pdfhttp://www.yourottawaregion.com/news/elections/article/881027


30/30

Further, there are secession movements in some of the nation's larger local governments. For example,there have been secession movements in the San Fernando Valley, Hollywood and the harbor area of thecity of Los Angeles. There is a secession movement in Staten Island, which is a part of the city of NewYork. At least two secession efforts are proposed in Atlanta. However, the barriers to unraveling a localgovernment that has become too larger or unresponsive can be prohibitive. Usually, the measure mustgain at least a majority of voters not only in the area seeking secession, but also in the larger jurisdiction

from which the secession is sought.

Government Further from the People: Higher Taxes and More Debt: Thus, the "bigger governmentsspend less" theory is not indicated by the actual experience. The larger local governments that result fromconsolidation are likely to lead to higher rather than lower taxes and spending per capita. Alsoimportantly, the remoteness of such governments from the electorate can dilute citizen influence morechallenging and public service quality can suffer.

7. THE ENDURING VALUE OF LOCAL DEMOCRACY

Thus, the evidence is pervasive, both at the national and local level. The smaller local governments thattypify local democracy are generally more efficient and they are better positioned to provide quality

public services to their residents. The history and performance of local democracy is witness to itsenduring value.

About the AuthorWendell Cox is principal of Wendell Cox Consultancy, an international public policy firm headquarteredin the St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois metropolitan area. He has published research on local and regionalgovernance issues in Toronto, Pennsylvania, New York, Indiana and Michigan and spoken widely on thesubject. He is a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris (a nationaluniversity) and has a BA in Government from California State University, Los Angeles and an MBA from

Pepperdine University.

Local Democracy and the Townships of Illinois: A Report to the People

Documents

Transcript of Local Democracy and the Townships of Illinois: A Report to the People